21 June 2013 4:26 PM

Musings on a Sultry Friday Afternoon

Leafing through contributions during a rare tranquil moment today, I found this from Mr Nigel Falls, who has been besieging me with peremptory tweets about drugs and ‘addiction’. I can’t think of a worse medium than Twitter in which to hold such a discussion (for some reason Paul Embery, of whom we now see so little here, has turned up there too, anxious to re-engage me on the subject of God, another subject unfitted for 140-character snippets, as it has proved.) .

So I am pleased to welcome Mr Falls here, where facts and logic can be properly deployed, an index is available, and books can be recommended and even read.

He writes : ‘I am proud to say I am one of the tedious people besieging Mr Hitchens on Twitter about his infuriating belief that addiction does not exist. I must add that I am from Northern Ireland so the intransigent, siege mentality is second nature to me. Mr Hitchens puts absolute faith in the misanthropic musings of Theodore Dalrymple whilst scornfully dismissing the majority opinion of clinicians and the anecdotal experiences of former addicts on this matter. All Dalrymple's book ‘Junk Science’ proved to me was Mr Dalrymple was in great need of a career change as he so obviously despised the people he dealt with on a professional capacity but that is just my opinion. The crux of Mr Hitchens's argument seems to me a semantic one as addiction cannot be objectively defined by scientific tests its existence amounts to an absurd piece of conventional wisdom. Mr Hitchens frequently cites Orwell's brilliant Essay "Politics and the English Language" as a major influence in his highly readable (I grudgingly concede) journalistic style. In it Orwell says "Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this" Mr Hitchens is doing exactly what Orwell warns us against by reducing the argument for the existence of addiction to the absurd on semantic grounds. Anyway thank you for the interesting debate Mr Hitchens. I do apologise if I may have bored you almost to sleep with my arguments but then again some people pay good money for narcotic substances which have the same effect.’

‘I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs. ‘

Well, I don’t claim that abstract words are meaningless, only that they cannot be used to describe material things, and that abstract concepts cannot be treated as if they had material existence. And I certainly don’t advocate quietism. If addiction is abstract, as Mr ‘Falls’ seems to concede, then it cannot be a disease of the human body beyond the control of the person suffering from it, and so cannot be ‘treated’ as if it were . It must be (as it is ) a concept. And a concept of what? Why, of a certain moral standpoint which denies the existence of free will. As this is fundamentally a religious question, one chooses whether one accepts the existence of free will or not, depending on what sort of world one wishes to inhabit.

This is the beginning of a sensible discussion of what it is, in that case. But such a discussion can only be held once Mr ‘Falls’ has accepted the need to argue on the basis of evidence and fact, rather than on the basis of his passions. And, where evidence and fact run out ( as they do in questions of faith) to concede that certain things must, this side of the grave, remain a matter of opinion. Next, to see that a rival opinion cannot necessarily be classified as ‘wrong’. It must be admitted as a legitimate possibility to be considered.

And on what grounds should we consider it, and on what basis will we choose whether to believe it in preference to a rival idea? Here's why teh God argumnet matters so much. The choice between them is then a moral or theological one. What the ‘addiction is a disease’ faction cannot accept is that their standpoint is a questionable opinion about free will, not an undeniable fact about physiology.

By the way, I have seen ‘Citizen Sane’ criticised for having in some way surrendered to me thanks to an alleged awe of my celebrity. Well, I see no evidence for this. he retains his indendence through our exchange. As for overaweing anyone, I’m not that majestic a figure (5 feet nine inches in my socks, overweight, big nose, bad typist etc ) and it’s amazing how many of my other Internet opponents manage *not* to be overawed by this effect., and address me as 'you ****'.

To return to Orwell, ‘Fascism’ has actually become meaningless because of the abusive and lazy use of the word as an all-purpose insult or denigration by left-wing propagandists. Its only serious meaning now is ‘to do with the Fascist government of Italy under Mussolini’. At the root of this problem was the difficulty which the Comintern, and later the Cominform, had with the expressions ‘Nazi’ and ‘National Socialist’ . ‘Nazi’ always called into mind ‘Nazi-Soviet Pact’, an event the Left wish to forget or (increasingly) have never heard of and would rather not hear of, thank you kindly.

‘National Socialist’ has obvious problems for any left-wing propagandist who wants to pretend that barbaric authoritarian despotisms are conservative in origin. In fact it's utopian 'enlightenment' ideas that usually inform them.

I won’t even begin to discuss the problems of matching the NSDAP and Mussolini up to General Franco, or Salazar, or Marshal Petain. It would be as time-consuming and useless as trying to draw up a street plan (with bus map) of the Lost City of Atlantis.

But if one wishes to deal with the abstraction ‘Totalitarianism’ all one needs to do is to introduce such things as :

‘National Socialist Party’ , or ‘Gestapo’, or ‘OVRA; or ‘Fascist Party’ , or ‘Pravda’ or ‘Voelkischer Beobachter’ or ‘People’s Court’ (and how like Judge Jefferys’ Bloody Assize was to Roland Freisler’s horrible trials, or Andrei Vyshinksy’s Moscow equivalents, can be seen in Conan Doyle’s tremendous description of Jefferys in action in ‘Micah Clarke’) , or SS, or Gulag, or NKVD; or in the modern day, the Chinese Lao Gai.

And then one can see that these things have actual objective, material and human manifestations which are far from abstract, can be measured, studied, in many cases photographed, always documented.

Addiction has no such characteristics. It remains both physically unmeasurable and logically and verbally slippery, meaning one thing at one time, and another at a different time, depending on which part of the argument is being advanced. It was (as the record shows) through this question of definition that I managed to persuade ‘Citizen Sane’ of the (very simple) point that I repeatedly make. He was able to concede it because he was able to subordinate his passions and his desires to his reason. Far from being a demonstration of weakness or subservience, it was a considerable demonstration of character and intelligence.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

To conclude addiction exists as an experiential and social narrative at the collective and individual level. The experiences and physical manifestations are real.

The denial of its existence is a political use of language on Mr Hitchen's part it is an attempt to undermine what he sees as a central tenet of the UK governmental attitude to drugs which he opposes.

However addiction denial becoming accepted knowledge is potentially dangerous. The popular acceptance of the concept and it's associated dangers is a powerful deterrent for young people contemplating experimentation in drugs. Also for those like me who made that mistake acceptance of it's existence formed the prologue of the narrative of my journey to abstinence.

I had the leisure over the weekend to read the interview and was impressed by the "Toucan's" reasonableness. I also read Orwell's essay, which I had not heard of before, and was flattered to see that he reached the same conclusion as me. I was particularly struck by his advice to arrive at what you are trying to say by images or sensations rather than risking ensnarement in the satanic word mill which surrounds us with its chatter.

My reference to Toksvig was of course to her accent and tone of voice, not to the content.

Firstly I would like to distance myself from both Mr Hitchen’s view that addiction is a myth and the culturally prevalent belief in the disease model of addiction. The latter belief is the most pernicious as informs how society currently deals with addiction. The disease model stigmatises addicts with having an incurable disease and advocates drug-based therapies such as methadone which seldom lead to abstinence and are costly to the tax payer. The only people who seem to benefit from this medicalisation of addiction are the pharmaceutical companies. Prior to the modern scientific discovery of the disease model of addiction the term had a meaningful and correct application in popular culture. Popular wisdom used it to indicate how some people when pursuing certain activities do so with such disregard and with such terrible results that their self destructive obsession is abnormal - therefore they are addicted. I concede that currently addiction is a concept rather than a biological condition. However it is a useful, vivid and potent concept. People become, act and feel addicted as I know from my own experience. It is absurd to argue against indisputable phenomena and experiences of millions down the ages as if it is some form of mass hysteria. Mr Hitchen’s believes that since we have free will addiction is a myth. Compulsive behaviours such as chronic drug abuse are indistinguishable to him from ordinary intentional behaviour since exercise of free will is the catalyst for them all. A large dose of law and order is his solution to the social ills caused by drugs. However his hypothesis falls down when faced with the legions of recidivist alcohol and drug abusers who despite imprisonment return to drug abuse upon release from prison or those who persist with fatal consequences. What other name is appropriate for the tragic Amy Winehouse who drank herself to death age 27? Mr Hitchen’s refuses to acknowledge such self destructive behaviour and meet with recovered addicts to understand their experiences as they are criminals and beneath him. Mr Hitchen’s refusal to acknowledge individuals like this renders his arguments academic and semantic to me. Acceptance of the experiences of addicts and those involved with them as proof of the existence of addiction is not synonymous with excusing the criminal behavior or biological determinism as Mr Hitchen’s would lead us to believe. A concept of addiction is necessary in order to respond to the social and health issues caused by the extremes of substance abuse and establish a model for controlled use. I accept that there is a moral dimension in why people initially take drugs or drink. Why people have certain moral values is often determined by economic considerations. As Brecht said “food is the first thing, morals follow on”. The poor are more susceptible because of the lack of opportunity and rewards. This however does not fully explain why people use substances to excess, continue to do so or stop. The concept of addiction does.

While elements of your case against anti-depressants may be valid, you are undermining your case by blaming them for just about every terrible thing that happens anywhere on the planet. LIke Scientology and its video on You Tube 'PSYCHIATRY: THE INDUSTRY OF DEATH' although even they make some valid points.

I noticed that you mentioned the Hannah Bonser case a few months back in the context of anti-psychotics. If you have read Theodore Dalrymple's 'If Symptoms Persist' he writes about a young woman in the manic phase of her disorder who had (and these are the good doctor's words, not mine.) 'taken to hearing voices' and gloating over the fact that he orders his 'underlings' (aka: nurses) to forcibly medicate her 'in the buttocks'.

I fear for the future of journalism when mere fact checking is interpreted as an ad hominem attack.

Melanie Phillips surprised me too, in her giving "the full Monty" as to Rouhani's supposed eschatology. She may have been reading the website "Archbishop Cranmer, for in an article on June 16, "Iran: Hassan Rouhani is neither moderate nor reformist," the writer says,

"Cleric Hassan Rouhani is a pious man, devoted like all Shias to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam. This President, like the previous one, believes that his government must prepare the country for the Imam's return. All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days in the company of Isa (Jesus). But President/Cleric Rouhani pledged himself with Ayatollah Khamenei decades ago to work for the return of the Mahdi. Indeed, Iran's military involvement in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq is purposely designed to agitate against Israel to hasten the Last Day. Iran's dominant ‘Twelver’ sect believes the Mahdi will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam and descendant of the Prophet Mohammed."

"Iran’s entire theo-political agenda is driven by Shia theology which is guarded by clerics who ensure that all legislation complies with Islamic law. And when it comes to foreign policy, this can only mean one thing for Israel, for they hold to the divine promise made in the Al-Israa Sura (Sura 17) that they will liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque - the first 'Kaba' to the Muslims - and will enter it as they have entered it the first time (Sura 17, ayat 7). And the prophetic foundation is the message of Mohammed that Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world."

We are not told on the website who "Archbishop Cranmer" is, but we are alerted to "Cranmer's Law," which runs as follows: "It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).

Tha audience member in Question Time, who said he was deeply offended by Melanie's remarks, seemed more concerned to defend Iranian culture, than to defend the truth. "Methinks he doth protest too much."

On the subject of free will; in my previous post I mentioned that it is difficult for opiate dependent people to give up the drug if they don't want to. I should have made it clear that I was thinking of the situation in which the drug user is convinced that he does want to abstain. At the same time another part or aspect of him is planning the the next drug purchase. Is this lack of self-knowledge, lack of moral courage, a symptom of pathology or "disease" or an aspect of human nature?
Not everyone has the clarity of thought of a PH, or the logical tools to use his reason if he could subordinate his passions to it. Not everyone is able to view the issue of free will in such a cut and dried way. Some of us are more ambivalent about what it means to exercise free will, perhaps because we are not so sure about exactly what kind of world we do wish to inhabit.
Here's Flannery O'Connor, in her introduction to the 2nd edition of her 1949 novella 'Wise Blood', commenting on the free will of her protagonist Hazel Motes, who is constantly trying, and failing, to expel Jesus from his thoughts. He believes himself a fervent atheist:
"That belief in Christ is to some a matter of life and death has been a stumbling block for some readers who would prefer to consider it a matter of no great consequence. For them Hazel Motes' integrity lies in trying with such vigour to get rid of of the ragged figure who moves from tree to tree in the back of his mind. For the author Hazel's integrity lies in his not being able to. Does one's integrity ever lie in what he is not able to do? I think that usually it does, for free will does not mean one will, but many wills conflicting in one man. Freedom cannot be conceived simply. It is a mystery..."

No, neat and tidy is precisely what we need, instead of rambling 500 page reports or abstract intellectual discourses that never solve anything.

" For example, there are many instances where the good treatment A; gets the bad treatment B response."

I'm just making a general case.

Good Master A has also got to be wise. He doesn't treat criminal servants in the same way as ones who he knows are worthy of good treatment.

The overlooked issue is how the servant B got to be a bad servant. And that is due to having previous bad masters, principally his parents.

"As a rule, good people do not behave badly (PH's thrust I would say). We have to accept that there are good and bad people, as well as lazy, and hard working, but there's simply no excuse for bad or lazy (selfish) behaviour."

No, what we have to do is figure out where the so called "bad" people are coming from, and it is as usual cause and effect.

It is firstly faulty parenting, it is failure to show the children an example of good. This is not understood because so few parents are genuinely good - the children are selfish and badly behaved, as the parents are - they simply follow their example, just as the masses follow the bad example of government.

That movie Trading Places expresses the general truth. You take the street conman (Eddie Murphy played him) and put him in the privileged position, and he makes good, he gives up crime, because he finds he can make money without crime.

Likewise, take away the privileges of the privileged, and most of them turn to crime of one kind or another - they even do it now, even with all their privileges.

So it's mainly the environment again. Give people honest chances, they take them, give them no fair chance, and they pursue their desires by illegal means - drug gangs, rapes, muggings, black market economies, etc.

"Back to square one then."

No, not back to square one at all. All people have to do is accept these simple truths and act on them.

I don't accept hardly any of the population is what you call "lazy."

This is an evil and oppressive lie put about because there are not enough opportunities for honest adequately paid work for those at the bottom, because Mrs Thatcher and globalising market economists took them all away and gave them to cheap labour countries.

At the time of the riots Boris Johnson on air (I watched him say this on live TV) insisted that lack of jobs was not the problem, whereas according to the Telegraph there were 54 people chasing every advertised vacancy in Tottenham where the riots started.

Cause and effect as usual.

People without adequate money create havoc. Those with enough money are too busy spending it.

I would expect so, since it presumably results from a physio-bio-chemical insertion of a material (THC) into the brain via the bloodstream, which is a material process and presumably acts by altering brain chemistry and operation, another material process. And it would not have happened without this. But as we know , our knowledge of the functioning of the brain is very limited so, while the causation is material, it may be very hard to measure it., though perhaps alterations in the physical character of the brain might be observed through Tomography, after it has happened. And its manifestations in the human body are observable in recordable ways, but not easily measurable or categorised. That doesn't mean, as some tedious and mischievous nuisances have sought to suggest, that they don't exist. As I discuss in my book, this is why it is so much harder to establish the cannabis-mental llness link than it was to establish the tobacco-lung cancer link.

Mr W writes:
'Why he (Mr Hitchens) doesn't state all this up-front to save a lot of time I am not sure but he seems to enjoy the resulting confusion.'

It would appear that Mr Hitchens is deliberately misrepresenting his own views, just like he seems to do with the homosexuality issue. Often when the issue is raised, Mr Hitchens will proudly say that he doesn't think that homosexuality should be illegal, and to some ears this actually sounds quite liberal (afterall, he wants the railways to be nationalised and didn't support the invasion of Iraq) - it certainly makes it seem less likely that he would be a homosceptic, which may well be the point. However, he fails to mention that he beieves that homosexuality is abnormal and morally wrong. Just look at his article from August 4th 2002, in which his attitude appears to be that gay people should be seen but not heard:

'As a private homosexual, he (Peter Duncan) needed and deserved the tolerance of those, like me, who think his choice is wrong but believe he had the right to make it. By asking for open acceptance of his choice as normal, he has joined the dangerous campaign against marriage and family life which has already done so much damage.

If Mr Duncan's private life is publicly acceptable, then the entire moral system which underpins our civilisation is up for revision. For that system is based on the idea that heterosexual marriage is the ideal and right form of sexual partnership.'

Interesting post, but all a bit neat and tidy don't you think? For example, there are many instances where the good treatment A; gets the bad treatment B response. Young wife (and lover) murders kind and generous elderly sugar daddy. Adopted child grows up to murder his adopt parents for the inheritance. These type stories are common, as indeed are the opposite where bad treatment B gets a good treatment A response.
As a rule, good people do not behave badly (PH's thrust I would say). We have to accept that there are good and bad people, as well as lazy, and hard working, but there's simply no excuse for bad or lazy (selfish) behaviour. Call a spade a spade I say.
Back to square one then.

Peter, just recently the trial of the murderer of Jazmin-Jean Ajbschitz in Australia came to its conclusion. The perpetrator, her ex-boyfriend, had a history of drug use that contributed to the murder and aggravated his violent tendencies. I would like to see if you are able to offer comment on not merely the perils of drug use but also the very perils of its legalisation that this case highlights. The fact is that the perpetrator chose to use drugs, knowing it would aggravate his already violent behaviour which cost his girlfriend her life.

'Addiction' is verbally slippery because people like you make it so!
I totally agree with Phil W, Hitchens has in his mind a certain idea of what 'addiction' really is, and so conceited is he that he will breezily refer to "the addiction fiction" and so on, without ever bothering to offer the rest of us his basic definitions!

So I'd love to hear his definition of addiction almost as much as I'd love to hear his thoughts on the origins of the 'soul', its connection with the personality and how it interacts with the body, etc. He is a believer in Jealous and the cult of his son, don't forget.

Mr Htchens:
'Well, I don’t claim that abstract words are meaningless, only that they cannot be used to describe material things, and that abstract concepts cannot be treated as if they had material existence.'

Does the mental illness caused by cannabis have material existence?

With regard to addiction, I am sure that many people would be happy to concede that addiction cannot be objectively measured, and that people can choose to stop taking drugs like heroin, just so long as Mr Hitchens conceded that to do so (stop taking drugs, not concede a point) can be really, really difficult - probably more difficult infact than it is for him to resist eating a bit too much. It is the acknowledgement of hardship that matters here; the choice to stop taking heroin is not the same as the choice to not eat a couple of Digestive biscuits before dinner.

Mr Hitchens mentions his religious discussions on Twitter, so let's just quickly clear up the question about whether atheism is a choice. Mr Hitchens argues that babies are not atheist because they aren't able to make a choice about whether or not 'God' exists. This argument fails when we consider what would happen if a baby was reared in an enviroment where 'God' was never mentioned (fanciful I know, but just go with it, for the sake of argument). That baby could grow into an intelligent thinking adult, but would still be an athiest because the 'choice' was never presented to them (the same could apply to remote Amazonian tribes who were never introduced to the idea of the Christian 'God').

Mr Hitchens fails to recognise that atheism is innate, and that the 'choice' to not believe in 'God', 'Allah' or 'Ganesh' is merely the recognition that someone else has said something that is clearly stupid. To illustrate this point, let's think about the person reared in ignorance of the belief that Christians have in 'God' (let's call him Mr Spoon). If, as an adult, Mr Spoon met 100 stupid people who each had a stupid idea about the nature of our existence and the universe, he would quickly realise that, since at least 99 of those ideas must be false and therefore stupid, people in general are stupid. If Mr Spoon then met a Christian who spoke of his beliefs, Mr Spoon would see just another (by now quite tiresome) stupid person expressing *their* stupid beliefs. His faith would not be in the non-existence of 'God', it would just be in the stupidity of other people's (apostrophe?)ideas.

Mr Hitchens wrote: 'As this is fundamentally a religious question, one chooses whether one accepts the existence of free will or not, depending on what sort of world one wishes to inhabit.'

How is that an argument? Surely reality is not changed by human whim? Either something is true or it is not, this must be the case for 'religious questions' the truth may be unpleasant, but whim cannot change the nature of the world.

'‘National Socialist’ has obvious problems for any left-wing propagandist who wants to pretend that barbaric authoritarian despotisms are conservative in origin. In fact it's utopian 'enlightenment' ideas that usually inform them. '

The Nazi party claimed to be socialist for propaganda reasons , one can look at their actions on family (for instance) to see their conservative ideology shining through, espousing in this case exactly the approach you do yourself Mr Hitchens, that a women's place is raising children, and having as many as possible, and outlawing abortion, hardly a leftist position. Or their approach to Atheism, which could send one to the camps, and Hitler claimed to have annihilated ( a lie like so much else he claimed, but a telling one). In this speech from 1933 Hitler makes clear his faith, and his hatred of non-believers: "To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk." "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

Please have the decency to admit to where your own ideas, taken to the extreme can end up, as I have to admit and ponder about Marxism, you must about Conservatism.

Franco could also be used, a Catholic dictator with the full backing of the Vatican, after that was in any possible way pragmatic survival strategy, or the Juntas in South America, again one faith, one nation, one people. Conservatism and Christianity showing that they are just as utopian and deadly as any 'enlightenment idea' (which is an odd thing for you to criticise, as enlightenment ideas are what give us democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of association and the rule of law, before that was Absolutism, Church and Crown trampling all before them, in lock step. Which I sincerely doubt is what you desire, or I have misjudged you. )

The point about the word "Nazi" is well taken. I had to go as an exchange student to Austria to learn that "Nazi" is short for National SOCIALIST Party. In the USA Nazi is never lengthened into what it actually stands for.

Peter Hitchens says I turned up on Twitter trying to re-engage him on the subject of God. It wasn't exactly like that. Far from suddenly turning up on the site, I've been active there, on and off, for a couple of years. And I did not raise God with him out of the blue; in fact my comments were interventions in a debate on the subject that he was having with others.

And I thought we were having a polite discussion about the relative merits of deist and theist arguments until, for some reason, Mr Hitchens got angry and, in a sudden outburst, accused me of being slow on the uptake.

I've had more wounding insults hurled at me, though I did think it a little hypocritical from someone who regularly laments the decline of manners and kindliness in our society. But, hey...

You give the game away when you write: "one chooses whether one accepts the existence of free will or not, depending on what sort of world one wishes to inhabit" , a perfect example of "argumetum ad consequentiam". This demonstrates that you are arguing according to your emotions, rather than to the "facts and logic" which you continually espouse. You are guilty of precisely the fault of which you accuse Mr Falls.

Knowledge of the workings of the human brain and the role of free will are being constantly updated and some of the conclusions reached by the likes of Sam Harris make for very uncomfortable reading for those brought up to believe in the primacy of free will in our actions.

I would hope that it would be common ground that our actions and reactions are determined by the workings of the brain. If so, surely the introduction of a toxic substance into the brain can affect our judgement, our responses and our ability to control our actions. You constantly argue that the abuse of drugs damages the brain and the psyche. Why do you stop short of conceding that it can damage our ability to make rational decisions, or to exercise free will?

Mr Hitchens seems to be addicted to Twitter. Could he 'come off' of his own volition, or does he need help? As Mr Hitchens alludes, debate, or even conversation, is not possible on Twitter. Why then continue with it against all the rational odds? It makes no sense, except of course if in fact it is impossible to leave Twitter alone. I looked at Twitter once, but I never inhaled. It was just one-liner heckling. Would someone please be kind enough to apprise me of the point. Thank you.

I know hardly anybody knows what I'm talking about, though think they do, so I'll try to clarify it here.

When the author here speaks of free will, I think he means there is such a thing as "moral choice."

If people are capable of making moral choices of right and wrong, they can be held responsible for their actions, whereas if they aren't thus capable, hypothetically they can't.

i.e. you can't hold a dog morally responsible for savaging someone to death, because everyone accepts a dog just acts according to instinct.

So the question is are humans any different?

And I argue very much that in the vast majority of cases they are not.

Take a servant of a master, a "lord of the manor."

Lord of the Manor "A" treats the servant well. Servant A respects his master for treating him well, and works well for him.

This is not a moral choice he is making, it is acting in his own advantage in response to his favourable environment - for being treated beneficially he responds by good treatment of his "master" in return.

Lord "B" however treats his servant badly. He beats him for no good reason, he pays him badly, and mocks him despite his best efforts.

Servant B plans to run away or find some way to take vengeance on his master.

Again, this is not a moral choice he is making, he is merely responding like a mirror, like an automaton to the treatment he is given.

Neither "free will" nor "moral choice" enters into it.

The servant behaves more according to Newton's law than "moral law" - he just responds to an action with an equal and opposite reaction.

However, society is not composed of equal people. Some people are naturally more moral than others.

This is largely an inborn quality, and history shows it is true.

Prophets are an example - Jesus, Mohammed, Confucius, Buddha.

Such beings by their actions create an action in numerous other people because hardly anybody they have met before has witnessed their moral behaviour.

In the same general way, the more moral in society would produce the same response out of the masses, except the more moral are mostly not in any positions of influence or power.

Those in the positions of influence are of low morality. Hence, like the bad Lord B they keep producing rebel and vengeance actions as per servant B.

The only way for this situation to change is for enough people to realise that the problem is putting Lord B into power instead of Lord A.

Free will or moral choice is not what's running out society - it's who is in power and how they behave that is.

Society in general has to work out that only by putting into power moral Lord A types will the lower classes behave themselves, and thus we will have a secure and happy society.

While elements of your case against anti-depressants may be valid, you are undermining your case by blaming them for just about every terrible thing that happens anywhere on the planet. LIke Scientology and its video on You Tube 'PSYCHIATRY: THE INDUSTRY OF DEATH' although even they make some valid points.

I noticed that you mentioned the Hannah Bonser case a few months back in the context of anti-psychotics. If you have read Theodore Dalrymple's 'If Symptoms Persist' he writes about a young woman in the manic phase of her disorder who had (and these are the good doctor's words, not mine.) 'taken to hearing voices' and gloating over the fact that he orders his 'underlings' (aka: nurses) to forcibly medicate her 'in the buttocks'.

I fear for the future of journalism when mere fact checking is interpreted as an ad hominem attack.

Yes, I agree that the term addiction is often used in an abstract sense, as seen in the Shorter OED "We be virgins and addicted to virginitie" (Greene). The meaning of addict (noun) "one who is addicted to the habitual and excessive use of a drug or the like" is also given. This is still an abstraction. My edition of the concise OED (admittedly 1976) extends the definition of addiction to "condition of taking drug excessively and being unable to cease doing so without adverse effects". If we limit these effects to physical effects, as the vomiting, diarrhoea, convulsions, hypertension, fever etcetera observable in opiate withdrawal, we are getting pretty close to something objectively measurable. Perhaps the term addiction is too loose for this physical dependence on opiates. Certainly I have never observed similar physical symptoms in people withdrawing from amphetamines, cocaine or cannabis, although such people typically report severe adverse (subjective) effects. I personally am happy to accept that heroin (and other opiates, as morphine, codeine, opium) physical dependence exists as an objective, observable phenomenon, and that this is sometimes loosely though not incorrectly called an "addiction".
Whether this dependence can be fairly called a disease is another matter. Certainly the withdrawing opiate addict experiences dis-ease. He is profoundly not at ease! But to call this disease in the pathological sense is at best sloppy. What is meant? That some people have some latent genetic deficiency that will result in them only, among a greater group who all take heroin, to become physically dependent? And if this is the case, could this deficiency be one of willpower? Or is it that those who take, of their own free will, enough opiates for long enough to become physically dependent, at some stage cross a line between mere stupidity and pathology?
A doctor once told me, in all earnestness, that opiate addicts' cravings are "real and can be seen in brain scans". I have to admit that I laughed aloud. Surely anything thought or felt could be seen in brain images, given sensitive enough equipment? I think it's self evident that stopping the use of a habitual drug will be difficult if the user doesn't want to stop. This sounds silly but is, I think, very often the case with "addicts", to use the term loosely. Recovered addicts frequently remark how difficult all the previous failed attempts at abstinence were compared to the final successful one!

Mr Falls's comment had irritated me, not so much by what he says but by the way he says it, and it is the way he says it which makes it hard to understand what he is saying. It is that familiar longwinded superciliousness that strains for lofty detachment. And as usual outcrops of intemperate language appear through the veneer.

"But then again some people pay good money for narcotic substances which have the same effect." This is typical of the formulaic archness (if that is the word) that conclude so many of these posts, articles and letters to the editor.

PH's mention of his height reminds me of a recent post which was, I think: "What an odious little man Peter Hitchens is." I since worked it out: lifted from Sandi Toksvig on BBC2's QI.

Before commenting, readers should know that PH defines addiction as something that CANNOT be overcome by will power alone and therefore his very literal definition of addiction indeed does not exist. If it can be overcome by free will, it is therefore not addiction (according to PH).

PH does accept that some substances (nicotine, etc.) are more 'habit forming' than others which seems to be the same thing as most people mean by 'addictive'.

Why he doesn't state all this up-front to save a lot of time I am not sure but he seems to enjoy the resulting confusion.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.